Dismissed

Syed Jaleel Ahmed v. The State of Ap.

Telangana HC8 Aug 2012CRLP/5925/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition seeking withdrawal of offences under Sections 498-A IPC, 406 IPC, and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court held that it cannot independently authenticate a private Memorandum of Understanding and the trial court must record a compounding statement. No further relief was granted.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; petition dismissed subject to the direction that the trial court must record a compounding statement.

Syed Jaleel Ahmed Vs The State of Ap. — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5925 of 2012

¶5

Between:

¶6

Syed Jaleel Ahmed & 2 others

¶7

.. Petitioners

¶8

AND

¶9

The State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶13

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5925 of 2012

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

The petitioners 1 to 3 are accused of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between A-1 and the de facto complainant/second respondent and that in pursuance of the said Memorandum of Understanding, all the clauses were complied with except clause relating to withdrawal of the criminal case. The said Memorandum of Understanding is a private document which has to be authenticated by the second respondent. Truth and voluntary nature of the said Memorandum of Understanding between the parties have to be ascertained by the trial Court before acting upon it. This Court cannot undertake the said exercise under Section

¶16

482 Cr.P.C. It is open to both the parties to present necessary petition under relevant provision of law before the trial Court for recording compounding of the offences. In such an event, the lower Court will record statements of both the parties and ascertain about truth and voluntary nature of the compounding of the offences. In case some of the offences are not compoundable, it is open to the lower Court to record compounding of the offences to the extent provided by law and thereafter pass necessary orders.

¶17

2. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed subject to the above observations.

¶18

______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J

¶19

Date: 8^th August, 2012

¶20

¶21

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA

¶22

GOVINDARAJULU

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5925 of 2012

¶24

Date: 8^th August, 2012

¶25

Syed Jaleel Ahmed v. The State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Jaleel Ahmed v. The State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Palakonda Prameela and 4 Others Vs Palakonda Geetha and Another

Pothina Ramana , Potti Ramana, Vs The State of A.P.

M/s. New Sarika Cotton Traders, Vs The State of A.P.

A.Patchamma Vs State of A.P.

Bolisetty Venkateswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Madala Padmamma Vs Jakkam Srinivasulu